EN BANC

ATTY.
ILUMINADA
M.
VAFLOR-FABROA,
Complainant,

- versus -

ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO,

Respondent.

A.C. No. 6273

Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ.

Promulgated:
March 15, 2010
x-------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
An Information for Estafa[1] was filed on June 21, 2001 against
Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa (complainant) along with others based on a joint
affidavit-complaint which Atty. Oscar Paguinto(respondent) prepared and
notarized. As the joint affidavit-complaint did not indicate the involvement of
complainant, complainant filed a Motion to Quash the Information which the trial
court granted.[2] Respondents Motion for Reconsideration of the quashal of the
Information was denied[3]

Respondent also filed six other criminal complaints against complainant for
violation of Article 31 of Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code of the
Philippines) before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, but he eventually filed a
Motion to Withdraw them.[4]
On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was Chairperson of the General
Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a Notice of
Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on October 14, 2001 to consider the
removal of four members of the Board of Directors (the Board), including her and
the General Manager.[5] The notice was signed by respondent.
At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly presided by respondent
and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L. Gerangco (Gerangco), who were not members of the
then current Board,[6] Gerango, complainants predecessor, as Chair of the
GEMASCO board, declared himself Chair, appointed others to replace the removed
directors, and appointed respondent as Board Secretary.
On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took over the GEMASCO
office and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. On even
date, respondent sent letter-notices to complainant and the four removed directors
informing them of their removal from the Board and as members of GEMASCO,
and advising them to cease and desist from further discharging the duties of their
positions.[7]
Complainant thus filed on October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative
Development Authority (CDA)-Calamba a complaint for annulment of the
proceedings taken during the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly.
The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by Resolution of February 21,
2002, declared the questioned general assembly null and void for having been
conducted in violation of GEMASCOs By-Laws and the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines.[8] The RDs Resolution of February 21, 2002 was later vacated for
lack of jurisdiction[9] of CDA.
In her present complainant[10] against respondent for disbarment, complainant
alleged that respondent:

X X X PROMOTED OR SUED A GROUNDLESS, FALSE OR UNLAWFUL

SUIT, AND GAVE AID AND CONSENT TO THE SAME[11]
X X X DISOBEYED LAWS OF THE LAND, PROMOTE[D] DISRESPECT
FOR LAW AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION[12]
X X X DID NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND
CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUE AND ENGAGED
IN HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL[13]
X X X VIOLATED CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS
CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW[14]
X X X RUINED AND DAMAGED NOT ONLY THE GEN. MARIANO
ALVAREZ SERVICES COOPERATIVE, INC. (GEMASCO, INC.) BUT THE
ENTIRE WATER-CONSUMING COMMUNITY AS WELL[15]

Despite the Courts grant,[16] on respondents motion,[17] of extension of time

to file Comment, respondent never filed any comment. The Court thus required
him to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with,[18] but just the
same he failed to comply.[19]
The Court thus referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.[20]
It appears that during the mandatory conference before the IBP, complainant
proposed the following issues:
1. Whether or not the acts of respondent constitute violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly the following:
1.1

Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of

the land and promote respect for law and legal [processes].

1.2

Canon 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness,

and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

1.3

Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the

court.

1.4

Canon 19 A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law.

1.5

Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time

to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
so.

2. Whether or not the above acts of respondent constitute violations of his

lawyers oath, particularly the following:
2.1

support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein

2.2

will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court

2.3

will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false

or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same

2.4

will delay no man for money or malice

3. Whether or not the above acts of [respondent] complained of are grounds for
disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court as provided for
in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.[21]

Respondents counsel who represented him during the conference proposed

the issue of whether, on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, misconduct
was committed by respondent.[22]
After the conclusion of the conference, both parties were ordered to submit
position papers.[23] Complainant filed hers,[24] but respondent, despite grant, on his
motion, of extension of time, did not file any position paper.
In her Report and Recommendation,[25] Investigating Commissioner Lolita
A. Quisumbing found respondent guilty of violating the Lawyers Oath as well as
Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Noting
that respondent had already been previously suspended for six months, the
Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended for two years.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Board of Governors opted for
the dismissal of the complaint, however, for lack of merit.[26]
On Motion for Reconsideration,[27] the IBP-CBD Board of Governors
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six
months.
The Court finds that by conniving with Gerangco in taking over the Board of
Directors and the GEMASCO facilities, respondent violated the provisions of the
Cooperative Code of the Philippines and the GEMASCO By-Laws. He also
violated the Lawyers Oath, which provides that a lawyer shall support the
Constitution and obey the laws.
When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints against
complainant, he violated the Lawyers Oath that a lawyer shall not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid or
consent to the same.
When, after obtaining an extension of time to file comment on the complaint,
respondent failed to file any and ignored this Courts subsequent show cause order,
he violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that
A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda
or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so. Sebastian v. Bajar[28] teaches:
x x x Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of
the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial
institution. Respondents conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A
Courts Resolution is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be
complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Respondents obstinate
refusal to comply with the Courts orders not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in
her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Courts lawful orders which
is only too deserving of reproof.
Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and
respondents deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof
will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary
sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any
other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their
processes.[29] (Citations omitted).

The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from the
practice of law for six months for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility,[30] he having been found to have received an acceptance fee and
misled the client into believing that he had filed a case for her when he had
not.[31] It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways. A more
severe penalty this time is thus called for.
WHEREFORE,
respondent,
Atty.
Oscar
P. Paguinto,
is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law for violation of Canons 1,
8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyers
Oath, effective immediately.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to
be appended to respondents personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines; and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice